Everyone wants to see a winner,but if after 28 matches it's a tie,then that's the result. It's not the same when you have an individual competition. The play off at the last Presidents Cup was a farce.
The playoff was a farce because they decided to render it meaningless by their decision to call it a tie. :nodsmiley The golf was spectacular given the pressure and the two putts on the final hole they played made it one of the most exciting moments in recent memory. If they instituted the same policy as the Ryder Cup, where the team that most recently won retains the Cup in the event of a tie, it would be fine, but when the matches end in a tie and the teams have to share the Cup for two more years, no one wins...including the fans. I'm sure, however, that they'll remedy the situation in the next few years and we'll have a winner next time even if it does end up 17-17.
While the competition on the course is still there,the Presidents Cup is still tainted with the 'exhibition golf' tag. The way is which the captains agree the line ups for the singles and the great friendship and respect both captains hold, make for a less edgy competition. I think the Ryder cup needs to move more towards the Ryder Cup and the Presidents Cup more towards the ryder Cup if both matches are to prosper.
Still like the idea of a trangular tournament played every year,winner to play other team away following year.
Still like the idea of a trangular tournament played every year,winner to play other team away following year.
While that would be nice thing to think about, it would never fly with the networks here in the US. The prospect of an International-Europe showdown wouldn't be too appealing to them, and I doubt you'd find many advertisers willing to put up money for it. Given that both the PGA (America and Europe) as well as the PGA Tour have their hands on big cash cows now in the Ryder and President's Cups, I doubt either will be willing to take one hand off the pot to benefit the game.
There is one thing I don't understand, USA was leading the match with 2 points when those final 2 matches were going on. When those 2 were halved, that means USA still had those 2 points leading the cup. So why was the playoff necessary? I would have understand that if the internationals had won both those matches.
I can understand the look on Phils face when he was told he had some more golf to play.
The new rule this year made it so that any matches tied after 18 holes would have to go on and decide a winner in extra holes, until one team had accumulated 18 points. To me, it seemed kinda silly, because it really didn't guarantee that there couldn't be a tie. It's one rule I wouldn't mind seeing scrapped before the next President's Cup.
You have a short memory if you've forgotten the response from the golf world that was caused by last year's President's Cup tie.
Somehow hearing the Americans say they wanted to "tie" one for Jack just doesn't have that ring to it.
At my age I'm lucky to have any memory at all--short or otherwise. But, the immediate, emotional "response of the golf world" has never been of any real concern to me. In the long run, the tie last time only increased the interest in this Cup--on the part of the players and the fans.
Of course, everyone wants to win the competition, but if the result is a tie after all the matches have been played, then a tie it should be without adding some extra playoff. Tiger's comments about last year's playoff and how he felt about it were right on target. Who would want to be put in that kind of position? He wins his match during the final day, but if he loses the sudden-death playoff, no one will ever remember anything about his play but that he was the guy who lost the Cup for the U.S. It's just not right to put anyone in that position.
The new rule this year made it so that any matches tied after 18 holes would have to go on and decide a winner in extra holes, until one team had accumulated 18 points. To me, it seemed kinda silly, because it really didn't guarantee that there couldn't be a tie. It's one rule I wouldn't mind seeing scrapped before the next President's Cup.
And what would have happened if the internationals had won those two matches? To me this rule gave the internationals the oppertunity to tie the match rather then decide the winner.
Of course, everyone wants to win the competition, but if the result is a tie after all the matches have been played, then a tie it should be without adding some extra playoff. Tiger's comments about last year's playoff and how he felt about it were right on target. Who would want to be put in that kind of position? He wins his match during the final day, but if he loses the sudden-death playoff, no one will ever remember anything about his play but that he was the guy who lost the Cup for the U.S. It's just not right to put anyone in that position.
When the best player in the world feels that way, I'm on his side as far as the old play-off format goes. There's no reason to play 4 days of "team" competition and then ask one player to decide the outcome in extra holes.
I think the reasoning behind those not wanting the President's Cup to end in a tie is that the PGA Tour dosen't want to mimic the Ryder Cup any more than it already does. I don't agree that there should be a tie and I believe a rules change before 2007 will address that issue. Retaining the Cup with a tie works for the long established Ryder Cup but the President's Cup needs to build interest any way it can. I don't think a tie does that. JMO
September 26th, 2005, 10:32 AM
I'm sure, however, that they'll remedy the situation in the next few years and we'll have a winner next time even if it does end up 17-17. 
But, the immediate, emotional "response of the golf world" has never been of any real concern to me. In the long run, the tie last time only increased the interest in this Cup--on the part of the players and the fans.
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
